Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1470 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

sniper said:
That's a triple deflection.
Own it.
Post the link to where it is answered and we can all move on - I cant find it. And its relevant because if a one-day TUE provides 3-4 weeks cover for an AAF then that is VERY different from it only providing cover for the 24 hours.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
sniper said:
That's a triple deflection.
Own it.
Post the link to where it is answered and we can all move on - I cant find it. And its relevant because if a one-day TUE provides 3-4 weeks cover for an AAF then that is VERY different from it only providing cover for the 24 hours.
Ex riders have stated that the Wiggins injection meant he was covered the Tour and could take more injections claiming anything in his samples (if they tested for it) was from TUE injection.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
sniper said:
That's a triple deflection.
Own it.
Post the link to where it is answered and we can all move on - I cant find it. And its relevant because if a one-day TUE provides 3-4 weeks cover for an AAF then that is VERY different from it only providing cover for the 24 hours.
Ex riders have stated that the Wiggins injection meant he was covered the Tour and could take more injections claiming anything in his samples (if they tested for it) was from TUE injection.
Thank you
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
sniper said:
That's a triple deflection.
Own it.
Post the link to where it is answered and we can all move on - I cant find it. And its relevant because if a one-day TUE provides 3-4 weeks cover for an AAF then that is VERY different from it only providing cover for the 24 hours.
Ex riders have stated that the Wiggins injection meant he was covered the Tour and could take more injections claiming anything in his samples (if they tested for it) was from TUE injection.
Thank you
Have you not been following the sport for the last few weeks? Rasmussen, Millar and Jaksche have all be interviewed and quoted in major media, never mind knowledgable fans and Swart/Tucker talking about it!

One might think you come here not to discuss....
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
sniper said:
That's a triple deflection.
Own it.
Post the link to where it is answered and we can all move on - I cant find it. And its relevant because if a one-day TUE provides 3-4 weeks cover for an AAF then that is VERY different from it only providing cover for the 24 hours.
Ex riders have stated that the Wiggins injection meant he was covered the Tour and could take more injections claiming anything in his samples (if they tested for it) was from TUE injection.
Thank you
Have you not been following the sport for the last few weeks? Rasmussen, Millar and Jaksche have all be interviewed and quoted in major media, never mind knowledgable fans and Swart/Tucker talking about it!

One might think you come here not to discuss....
I absolutely did come here to discuss which is why I asked the question here and on the Wiggins thread (someone else also asked if it had been answered btw) but no-one actually answered it until you did just now - if it was that well known why didn't people post back stating which interview, etc. and providing a link.

I've read the Jaksche interview and it makes no mention of how long the TUE covers you for, just that it allows you to get a 50mg injection before the tour. It doesn't state whether you can keep getting further injections under the cover of the original TUE - something that I think is very relevant to the story. ie was it a one off injection or a series of injections?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
... if it was that well known why didn't people post back stating which interview, etc. and providing a link.
because it was clear that you used it as a deflection.
i pointed you to the TUE thread, which you could've checked yourself if you were genuinely interested in finding out.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
TheSpud said:
... if it was that well known why didn't people post back stating which interview, etc. and providing a link.
because it was clear that you used it as a deflection.
i pointed you to the TUE thread, which you could've checked yourself if you were genuinely interested in finding out.
I did check but couldn't find it. But you know, you (or others) could have helped me out and linked to it rather than taking the approach of accusation and fighting ...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
sniper said:
TheSpud said:
... if it was that well known why didn't people post back stating which interview, etc. and providing a link.
because it was clear that you used it as a deflection.
i pointed you to the TUE thread, which you could've checked yourself if you were genuinely interested in finding out.
I did check but couldn't find it. But you know, you (or others) could have helped me out and linked to it rather than taking the approach of accusation and fighting ...
fair enough.
I'll look up what Ross Tucker had to say about it. He got the same question posed to him on twitter, iirc.
Rasmussen was also weighing in.
As as Benotti said, the bottom line was that with the 40mg TUE Wiggins could basically gear up with kenacort throughout the TdF without having fear a positive.
But i'll see if i can dig it up.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

sniper said:
The question is irrelevant to the issue at hand (the power of kenacort).
Stop clogging and move on.
I think the question is relevant and interesting. I too would like to know. And since when is this the "power of kenacort" thread?

John Swanson
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
sniper said:
The question is irrelevant to the issue at hand (the power of kenacort).
Stop clogging and move on.
I think the question is relevant and interesting. I too would like to know. And since when is this the "power of kenacort" thread?

John Swanson
Since Sky got 3 TUEs for Wiggins and Brailsford denied knowing it had any performance enhancement for a start.

Since Sky have been on the run after it was revealed that Wiggins got 3 TUEs for Kenacort before 3 of the biggest races of his career while on sky the team that refused to join MPCC becuase they claimed it was not strict enough.

Since they claimed they would rather a rider didn't race then apply for TUEs.

Since lots of former riders and lots of Doctors have told the world about it.

Since it was revealed the NHS for a decade has not used Kenacort.

....
...
..
.
 
Re: Re:

Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
TheSpud said:
sniper said:
TheSpud said:
... if it was that well known why didn't people post back stating which interview, etc. and providing a link.
because it was clear that you used it as a deflection.
i pointed you to the TUE thread, which you could've checked yourself if you were genuinely interested in finding out.
I did check but couldn't find it. But you know, you (or others) could have helped me out and linked to it rather than taking the approach of accusation and fighting ...
fair enough.
I'll look up what Ross Tucker had to say about it. He got the same question posed to him on twitter, iirc.
Rasmussen was also weighing in.
As as Benotti said, the bottom line was that with the 40mg TUE Wiggins could basically gear up with kenacort throughout the TdF without having fear a positive.
But i'll see if i can dig it up.
Please do. Seriously Sniper this is not about arguing with you or anyone else for the hell of it.

I asked (in my view) a couple of genuine questions - it wasn't about point scoring. I'm still not 100% convinced we have a proper answer on some things - mainly how long does the TUE cover you for, etc. I did not see that in the TUE thread or any of the interviews. That's where I am at, that's all.
 
Re:

Jeroen Swart said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1982047#p1982047

This post I made in July will make more sense in light of recent events.

I got flamed for it by Benotti69.

Sometimes the benefit of hindsight makes things clearer. ;-)
Your comments surrounding these Wiggins TUE's does nothing to help the situation in cycling. Can I ask how you were able to conclude that they were unethical without actually seeing the individual's medical information? If anything was unethical it was you and others questioning the legitimacy of someone's medical treatment after an illegal hack of their data. It's absolutely appalling behaviour. I can understand a pretty simple man like Nico Roche making that mistake but you should have known much better.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
It's interesting to be able to spin a blatant lie as a good sign... "The fact that they could not put up a good lie is proof that they didn't really intend to lie"
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
It's cute that you suggest that all of Sky's lack of transparency and proven lies are a conspiracy. Can I have some some of what you're on?

I thought they were the masters of attention to detail? This isn't very attention-to-detaily I don't think...
 
Re: Re:

Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
I do but I don't make judgements without all of the information
You're already making a judgement. You're watching cycling and judging that what you're seeing from Sky is clean... despite the lies. You're judging that, by lying about Pooley, they're not covering anything up.

That's a judgetment

This isn't a court of law. When wel watch cycling we have to decide whether what we're seeing is legit, or whether it's superior doping. (If, indeed we care if they're doping at all.)

(would be interested to know if cope did meet Pooley that month for example), I didn't make a judgement about Armstrong until I read the USADA report and I will not make judgements here until people with access to more of the complete picture have evaluated that information and come to a decision.
And who will those people be? Anti-doping didn't catch Armstrong, the feds did. And it wasn't anti-doping that learned about this package, it was the Daily Mail.

If we left things to anti-doping, dopers would have nothing to fear.
From what I understand it was UKAD who were first informed about the package by a Team Sky insider. Lawton has a contact within UKAD who leaks everything to him (see Farah missed tests, Armitstead etc) so that's how he was able to break the story. The UKAD investigation was meant to remain confidential.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
sniper said:
more or less significant than clenbuterol?
Much less significant considering that Clen is banned in and out of competition.
That does not really have a lot to do with it, i suspect that clenbuterol is banned in and out of competition because it's simply not approved as a human medicine in most countries, so you can't really have a legal, legitimate use of it. The logical thing in that case is to ban it outright.
I think that systemic use of corticoids should be banned in competition and closely monitored OOC for what it's worth...
 
Re: Re:

heart_attack_man said:
JRanton said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
It's cute that you suggest that all of Sky's lack of transparency and proven lies are a conspiracy. Can I have some some of what you're on?

I thought they were the masters of attention to detail? This isn't very attention-to-detaily I don't think...
We've seen numerous examples throughout their seven years in cycling where they haven't been able to live up to that description of them.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
JRanton said:
Dalakhani said:
MatParker117 said:
until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing
Imagine you were a member of a jury, and the accused's alibi was proven to be a lie - that he was 600 miles away from where he claimed to be - wouldn't you think that's suspicious?

What we have here is Sky, rather than telling the truth, making a false accusation against another rider. And we know it's false because there's cast iron evidence Pooley was 600 miles away in another country.

So the question is why did they lie? And the answer is clearly because they don't want us to know the truth. Why not? Because the truth would be damning.
Again, the fact that it could be proven so quickly that Pooley was 600 miles away in another country strongly suggests that explanation wasn't intended to be a lie and was merely a misunderstanding/incompetence. The conspiracy theorist needs it to be a lie but the far more logical explanation is that it wasn't.
It's interesting to be able to spin a blatant lie as a good sign... "The fact that they could not put up a good lie is proof that they didn't really intend to lie"
There is nothing to suggest this was an attempt to knowingly deceive the journalist in question. Can we agree that if it was, then it was probably one of the most stupid attempts at lying that you could possibly imagine?

People are pretending that the idea of Cope travelling to see Pooley is totally ludicrous. He was her coach for goodness sake!
 
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Are you for real?

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/jaksche-on-skys-tue-controversy-we-used-the-same-excuse-in-my-era/

From someone who actually used it:
Asked what the benefits were, Jaksche said that there were clear boosts.

“The effect was extreme. Cortisone reduces inflammation in your body, number one. It is also a little bit pushy as it is a hormone. So it causes a certain hormone rush.

“On one hand you are at [race] weight and you are more willing to perform, and then on the other hand it is a strong pain killer and an inflammation killer. So your recovery is shorter and the pain you are going through is less.

“It makes you very skinny. It burns fat. If you do it at the beginning of the Tour, you are going to lose another one to two kilos in the first week. You are going to suffer less. You are going to be less tired as your recuperation is faster because of the anti-inflammatory effects. It is the old school of doping.”
 
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
JRanton said:
Triamcinolone isn't even banned outside of competition so please spare us the idea that this was a significant performance enhancer.
Which is totally contrary to the views of former dopers who have witnessed at first hand its effects:

David Millar
“As I said in my book, I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences… Kenacort [triamcinolone], though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different,” Millar told The Telegraph last week.

“You would do all the training but my weight would stick. But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off, I would feel stronger.”

“No, that’s cheating?” Dumoulin said when asked if he would consider applying for such a TUE.


Joerg Jaksche

TUE or not, he is clear that there is a big boost from injections of Triamcinolone acetonide.

“I would say it is a very big performance improver. It reduces weight, it increases your recovery and it is a very strong painkiller. From my experience, I would say that it is probably a three to five percent performance improvement.

“It is not marginal,” Jaksche adds, with a laugh.
I'll take the view of WADA and their medical experts over the likes of Joerg Jaksche and David Millar if that's ok with you. I also like how David Millar, whose views and opinions are normally treated with utter contempt on here, suddenly becomes somebody worth listening to the second he says something that fits your argument.

You guys are too funny.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY